The 1989 annual meeting of Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research
Society was held at the Marriott Hotel in Denver, Colorado. It ran
from Thursday, 26 October until Sunday, 29 October. I served as a
delegate to the meeting, representing the Wilkes College Sigma Xi
club. Overall, 350 delegates attended the meeting, representing 192
chapters and 123 clubs throughout North America. As at previous
meetings, the Denver meeting consisted of a two-day symposium as well
as national and regional assemblies of delegates. This year's
symposium was entitled "Science as a Way of Knowing: the
Undergraduate Experience".

The purpose of this report is to summarize the presentations made
during the symposium, based on notes that I took. Business conducted
during the assemblies of delegates was summarized in a report that
was distributed by the National Headquarters in December. A copy of
that summary report is available on request.

This was the second consecutive year that the symposium at the Sigma
Xi meeting centered on the general topic of science education. The
symposium at the 1988 meeting was entitled "Public Understanding of
Science and Technology", and was co-sponsored with the American
Association for the Advancement of Science.

The theme of the 1989 meeting developed from the report of a Sigma Xi
advisory group that met at Wingspread Conference Center in Racine,
Wisconsin to discuss the current status of undergraduate science
education, and to make recommendations. The report, entitled "An
Exploration of the Nature and Quality of Undergraduate Education in
Science, Mathematics and Engineering", was mailed to delegates before
the meeting. Copies were also sent to the CEO's of colleges and
universities nationwide. In my estimation, the report is fascinating
and deserves to be read by everyone interested in undergraduate
science, math, or engineering education. I made multiple copies of
the report, and those are also available upon request.

The symposium consisted of three sessions that included presentations
by nationally-known authorities in science education. The first
session, held on Friday morning, involved four presentations that
provided an introduction to the needs and status of science education
in the U.S. The second session, held on Friday afternoon, was
entitled "Trends in Curricula", and included a general session with
two speakers as well as three panel discussions (Undergraduate Field
Courses, Mathematics Initiatives, and Innovative Research
Experiences) that served as breakout sessions. The third session was
entitled "Challenges for Action."

We must look at undergraduate science education from a global
perspective and see interconnections with other efforts. Such
interconnectedness does not occur, especially at the national level.
For example, two awards were given in Washington in early October,
one being a Presidential Medal of Science and the other being an
award for outstanding teaching. Yet, the two were considered to be
separate. That is a symptom of the lack of a national effort to
relate science and education. Efforts at the undergraduate level must
also be linked to high-school and post-graduate education.

Presently, the number of American science baccalaureates who go on to
receive a Ph.D in science is decreasing, whereas the number of
foreign-born students receiving Ph.D.'s is increasing, especially in
math and engineering. Opportunities for those with B.S. and Ph.D.
degrees are increasing. Usually there is a lag between the time that
opportunities arise and the time that they are filled by qualified
professionals, however.

A second important point is that graduate education is intimately
linked to research. Support for research is increasing. That should
lead to an increase in graduate enrollments, but still there is a
decline. Despite these trends in enrollment, graduate education can
be rated as being excellent and highly productive.

The situation is different for science education at the undergraduate
level. Presently, we have a decrease in enrollment and retention,
partly due to the decline in the number of 18-year-olds. Some effort
is directed toward improving support for undergraduate science
education. The National Science Foundation is now allocating money,
and in 1986 developed an office of undergraduate science and
engineering education. Some of the programs are directed toward
underrepresented groups. More programs are needed though, especially
in certain disciplines. A primary target is the freshman and
sophomore level, similar to the project to upgrade the way that
calculus is taught. We must also develop interconnections between
disciplines in order to improve education for science and non-science
majors alike. Consortia should be developed between 2-year colleges,
4-year colleges and universities, and to better couple teaching with
research. However, no single agency can accomplish this, instead
several must collaborate. Those efforts must be evaluated as
well.

In summary, we have an excellent graduate education system, but the
undergraduate system merits attention. One way to help accomplish
that is to set aside some funds from NSF grants to improve
undergraduate science education. We must provide more funding at the
undergraduate level in a way that minimizes duplication of effort and
interruptions. We should also make connections to pre-college
education.

Dr. Kenneth C. Green (University of Southern California) "National
Needs and Trends"
We are currently witnessing a deteriorating infrastructure in
science. The irony is that Americans almost made a clean sweep of
Nobel Prizes given out this year. However, those awards were
generally based on work done 20-30 years ago.

A recent study done by UCLA on the aspirations of students found that
the number majoring in science declined by 50% in the past 20 years.
A big problem is that many good students are discouraged early in
their career and switch majors. Indeed, if undergraduate science
departments were run as a business, many would become bankrupt due to
their inclination to alienate their clients. The result is that we
are losing the very people who need to know about science.

Of all of the sciences, biology appears to have the most healthy
undergraduate enrollment, but much of that is due to the large number
of pre-meds. Ironically, an large proportion of biology majors change
majors due to their inability to succeed in organic chemistry courses
that are poorly taught and unnecessarily difficult.

We need to increase the number of women selecting science careers.
However, like men, fewer women are choosing to major in science. Math
is suffering a particularly large dropoff of females, especially at
the freshman level. One reason appears due to paucity of females
wanting to become high school math teachers, due to the development
of other career options over the past twenty years. Engineering and
computer science have also lost as much as 25% female enrollment.
Although "4.0" students are largely staying with science majors, many
of the "3.0" students are switching to business because of
opportunities there.

Another problem is at the high-school level where teachers have not
been taught in a scientific discipline, but instead were liberal arts
majors. Considering all majors, students majoring in education and
business have the lowest SAT scores and high-school rank.

Science attracts the best students, but for some reason retention is
low. The most severe loss occurs during the freshman year. Pre-meds
are among the most capable, yet if they do not achieve very high
G.P.A.'s in their first two years they generally switch completely
out of science.

The picture is brighter for minorities as enrollment has been
increasing over the past 2-3 years.

We complain that our students are docile, apathetic and interested
only in careers that make money. One reason for this, however, is
that today's students witnessed an economic upheaval when they were
younger. The historical symbols of middle-class affluence, including
a home, a car, and going to college are now less affordable than a
generation ago. Indeed, this may be the first generation in which the
children will be economically less well-off than their parents.

The challenges for science education are four-fold. First, we must do
a better job of developing the talent of students who enter our
classes. Second, we must provide better opportunities for non-science
majors, and even find ways to bring them into our upper-level
courses. Third, we must improve student and faculty interaction.
Fourth, we must foster a renewed concern for educating teachers.

A current area of concern is assessment and value added. One
indication that there is a problem is that students frequently score
lower in their G.R.E. exams than in their S.A.T.'s.

The loss of the NSF programs for undergrads in the early '80's dealt
a terrible blow to the science-education pipeline, causing us to lose
a generation of potential students.

We also need to change the patterns of interaction between different
levels of the educational system. Essentially, there needs to be a
two-way flow of ideas between the pre-college level, the
undergraduate level, the graduate level and the actual science
profession.

Dr. Thomas Daniel (University of Washington) "The Process of
Science in the Under- graduate Experience."

Thus far, solutions to problems in science education have been
band-aids, not true long-term remedies.

Faculty and administrators at the University of Washington are faced
with a dilemma. Most of their students come from the state of
Washington, which ranks 46th in per capita spending for education of
the 50 states. UW is highly research-oriented, and faculty are
rewarded for getting grants. Thus, there is a disincentive to devote
much effort towards undergraduate education.

The undergraduate science experience at UW includes freshman-level,
upper-level and interdisciplinary courses. The biggest challenge is
the freshman-level course where there are 200-400 students in a
class, and where the students are too often disinterested, and poorly
literate due to television. Courses must be interesting to engage
those students. They use a conceptual approach.

For non-majors, a conceptual approach is not successful. Instead, the
inter-relationship between science and society is emphasized. Faculty
teaching non-majors courses should realize that theirs may be the
only science course that their students take at the collegiate level.
They try to raise moral issues to involve the students and perhaps
even gain a few "converts". Their non-majors course has a traditional
lecture/lab format. The general concepts are the same from year to
year, but the examples change. Last year they emphasized AIDS, while
this year the focus is on substance abuse. One difficulty with the
course is that the labs are shabby and the equipment can be improved.
Students work closely with faculty, and students like that
arrangement, according to comments on their evaluations. Students
often use the time to ask questions concerning lecture material.
Faculty and teaching assistants often resent the time though, because
it conflicts with activities that are rewarded. Although student
evaluations are good, only 1% of the students switch to science
majors.

In their upper-level majors courses, the faculty have more time to
devote to teaching critical-thinking and writing skills. This is done
by having faculty review students' papers, that are then returned for
revision. Faculty are concerned by a loss of analytic skills
(evidenced by their inability to do algebra) and by poor writing
skills. To combat this, students are now required to write more than
one paper per course, and to investigate the primary literature.
Courses that include a heavy writing component have a
writing-intensive designation. Other courses force students to do an
independent research project. Students coming into these courses fear
for their ability to survive. They must grapple with concepts from
different areas, and this teaches them interdisciplinarity.

One successful approach involves a combination of biology and math
into a new major. Students progress with the two disciplines from the
freshman to the senior year. They learn how to relate the two,
especially how to evaluate biological phenomena quantitatively. The
faculty hope that their students will do a better job of applying
concepts learned in one course to others, and that the dual major
will make the students more marketable. To be successful in the
program, students must have an aptitude for biology, math and
computers. The program enhances breadth at the expense of depth.
Since it is difficult to acquire sufficient math expertise in four
years, some students do the program in five years. It is still too
early to evaluate the program's success.

The reward system must be changed to ensure good undergraduate
science education. Funds must be allocated at the national level.
Most faculty at research institutions do see teaching as important,
though.

Dr. Shirley Malcolm (American Association for the Advancement of
Science) "Cultivation, Not Weeding: Nurturing a New Generation."

We need to enhance the throughput of minority, female and disabled
students. To do so, it is important to recognize the practices that
encourage those students. Dr. Malcolm (a black female) left
Birmingham, Alabama in 1963. With the aid of many people who
encouraged her, she graduated from the University of Washington.

She mentioned that she is poor at growing plants. Those that start to
die get plucked out, while those that remain look pretty good. Her
mother does a better job of growing plants, and even prides herself
on growing hard to cultivate species. She is successful because of
the attention that she devotes to them. As long as plants are
numerous, weeding is acceptable. However when the plants are few,
weeding leads to extinction.

She recalled an overly difficult chemistry teacher who practiced
reverse education triage. Those in need of help did not get it and
left. Those not in need received all the attention. She admitted to
having difficulty with chemistry at first, but personalized guidance
from another faculty member helped her through. When she had second
thoughts about a career in medicine, that same faculty member advised
her to look into academic science. The moral is that successful
intervention by a single person can have an important impact.

Unfortunately, some faculty view a high drop-out rate as being
desirable. We must change that attitude, and stop giving discouraging
advice to students. Some faculty maintain that students are "born" to
be scientists. Others do not allow for "late bloomers" to develop.
Those practices and philosophies must be ended. Instead, we must
realize that a diverse array of people can become scientists. We must
look to the entire talent pool as a resource. Secondary institutions
seeking to increase the number of minority faculty should grow their
own.

Womens' colleges are very effective at producing young scientists.
The reason is that the students there receive more encouragement.
Minority students with high SAT scores are also successful at
completing science programs, when they receive encouragement.

In essence, students thrive when provided with appropriate
encouragement, and die without it.

Harvey Mudd College of Claremont, California is a science and
engineering college in which 1/3 of the courses are in the
humanities. It is well respected, and students enjoy a very high
placement rate.

Students at the College work in teams. Engineering students work with
clients who propose projects for them to design. That clinic is
mandatory for all students: those pursuing a B.S. must have three
credits of clinic, while M.S. students need six credits.

The clinic is organized as follows. Students meet with a prospective
client who indicates the problem and provides funds to help implement
the design. The solution comes from the students, with faculty
serving as a resource. It was difficult to find real clients at
first. Many faculty were skeptical. Now it is successful, though very
time-consuming for the faculty.

The clinic does lose many students through the year. A study of the
clinic found that some students were good at generating ideas, while
others liked to tinker.

To improve retention in engineering programs, students must be given
a chance to do engineering.

The projects seemed to provide a good way for students to get
hands-on experience. Outside reviewers pointed to the success of the
program. Graduates are also very enthusiastic about it. The down side
is that students might not receive some of the more general
theoretical knowledge of their discipline. However, they do develop
good problem-solving techniques.

Faculty at the University of Chicago have developed an integrated
sequence of six courses for non-majors. The program is described
fully in a brochure that was made available to all in attendance. (I
picked up copy, and duplicated them, they are therefore available on
request.)

There are several good reasons for non-science majors to have a good
exposure to science. Possibly the best reason is that non-science
majors need to understand the nature of the answers to public policy
questions. They need to be able to evaluate evidence, especially when
it is based on quantitative information. They also must develop the
ability to separate science from non-science.

Courses for non-scientists must emphasize six aspects: (1) how
scientists address questions; (2) paradigms and concepts must be
stressed, rather than facts; (3) different subdisciplines of science
are interrelated; (4) science has important implications to the life
of the student; (5) hands-on exposure to scientific investigation;
(6) science can be fun.

The courses in their sequence all revolve around the central theme of
evolution. There are six courses, each with a different faculty
member. The sequence is highly interdisciplinary, and students are
treated to an approach that shows the diversity of science, that a
particular topic can be approached in different ways by different
kinds of scientists, and that concepts from the different disciplines
interrelate and indeed build upon one another.

Each course is taught in a lecture/lab format. The labs are designed
to illustrate points made in lecture. They are not "cookbook" in
nature, but instead force students to design experiments, collect
data, evaluate the data and relate data to the theory.

Although the sequence is rather new, it appears to be overwhelmingly
successful. Retention is high and student evaluations are generally
very positive. Moreover, enrollment is increasing greatly each
year.

From the administrative standpoint, the six faculty members involved
must be able to communicate with each other. Faculty should be
selected who are interested in working with non-majors. The program
should not depend on the participation of specific individuals.
Instead, courses should be developed in a sufficiently broad manner
so that if one faculty member leaves, another can take his/her place,
with minimal disruption in continuity. The UC program has experienced
some turnover, with little effect on the overall sequence.

As a member of the Committee on Science, Space and Technology, he
focuses on science from a national perspective. He is concerned with
civil, as opposed to military, science. The warrant (defined as an
authorization or duty to act) for civil science must be continually
renewed in order to keep funding. To enhance the prospects for
continued funding, scientists must be responsible. At the same time,
the public should listen to scientists. Certainly, science must be
important because the government spends $75 billion on it.

Eight years ago, NSF's support of undergraduate education declined
sharply. Support is increasing once again, but the level is still
very low compared to that allocated in the 1960's. The government's
commitment to preeminence in science is questionable.

Society's support for science also ebbs and flows over time. If we
fail to develop our science, we jeopardize our future. Even momentary
lapses can have severe repercussions.

The importance of a civil science was recognized as far back as the
1780's-1880's. At that time, the government supported explorations of
America and the Pacific. During that time, national laboratories were
also established, including the National Bureau of Standards, whose
mission was to determine the properties of materials. Conversely, the
development of a national university, first proposed in the 1780's,
never came to pass. Generally, though, the government's support of
civilian science has been recognized as being important.

Over the past century, science has been transformed from its
practical roots to being more theoretical. We now may be too
theoretical, and our ability to do applied science is second-rate. We
must better support applied civilian research. For example, great
changes are occurring in manufacturing due to the advent of CADD
(Computer-Aided Design and Drafting). CADD has led to tremendous
increases in productivity and can be viewed as a second industrial
revolution. Despite its importance, the U.S. government has allocated
only $11 million towards programmable automation.

The U.S. retains three areas of worldwide preeminence: aerospace
science, agriculture, and biomedicine. That preeminence is due to
heavy governmental investment in those areas. The benefits are great,
making the money allocated very cost-effective. We should bring the
same level of expenditure to other areas of science.

To attract funds scientists must be able to deal with the public.
Since taxpayers fund 50% to 75% of all research, scientists have a
real obligation to be involved in science education. This includes
teaching students, teaching teachers and serving as mentors. As
citizens, scientists should help shape public opinion.

Sigma Xi is active in providing advisory groups at the state level.
Individual chapters and clubs should provide expertise to local
politicians. On a larger level, scientists in the U.S. must do a
better job of interacting with those in other countries, and Sigma Xi
can facilitate such international communication.

Scientists should also become involved in the development of
congressional awards for undergraduate science students (two per
congressional district). Scientists can help set selection criteria,
as well as help in the selection process itself.

The Committee sought to convene a group to chart policy concerning
science education. To underwrite expenses they submitted grant
proposals to the National Science Foundation and the Johnson
Foundation. The goal was to develop a series of recommendations that
would be valuable to the nation, to individual institutions and even
to individual departments.

The evolution of the 35-member group was interesting. First, she
wanted to make sure that it was multidisciplinary. Second, the group
also needed representation from all kinds of undergraduate
institutions. Third, the group had to include representatives of
various minorities. On that basis, she identified individuals based
on her own knowledge of people and on the recommendations of others.
In general, the group consisted of senior-level people, with younger
scientists and educators not present. To provide some balance, four
undergraduate science majors were invited to participate.

The group brought experts together, most of whom did not know each
other prior to the meeting. They met at Wingspread, exchanged ideas,
held breakout sessions and plenary sessions, and produced a report.
The report was circulated to all of the participants and it went
through several revisions before being printed and distributed. The
report, thus represents a good consensus of ideas.

The report contains seven sections: 1. Quality of Instruction; 2.
Quality of Curricula; 3. Quality of the Human Environment; 4. Quality
of the Physical Environment; 5. Accessibility and Flexibility of
Curricula Essential for Student Mobility; 6. Attitudes and
Perceptions of Students, Faculty, Administrators and the Public; 7.
Promises and Special Needs of Traditionally Underrepresented
Groups

Since the group was so diverse, the topics raised were necessarily
generic, and they had to take a broad view of science education.
Still, the recommendations are applicable to all, particularly at the
institutional and departmental level. The synergism of science, math
and engineering provided a unifying aspect.

One interesting aspect was the perceptions of students. Students have
a strong interest in the interrelation between science and society.
They want to help resolve society's problems. This led to a
discussion about technology and the need to incorporate the effect of
technology into the curriculum. Many scientists are poor at relating
science to society in a manner that is meaningful to
undergraduates.

Responses to the Report of the National Advisory Group:

Dr. John W. Prados, Chair (University of Tennessee)

When developing curricula, institutions and departments are faced
with financial and time limitations. If we add something, we must
take something else away.

The value system in academia is organized in such a way that most of
the support is given to upper-level majors' courses. The least is
given to non-majors courses. This should be changed. Delegates to the
meeting should take that message back to their chapters and
clubs.

Dr. Karel F. Liem (Harvard University)

In the U.S., the educational system is very dynamic. We are always
assessing its effectiveness and making changes when problems are
perceived. In other countries, education is less dynamic.

When he meets with faculty teaching introductory biology he finds
that they feel little incentive to develop excellent courses. There
is little financial reward either from the institution or from
granting agencies. Thus, faculty who must teach those courses are
often demoralized.

How do we combat this? One way is to have NSF visit institutions and
determine which are doing a good job of teaching undergraduates,
particularly freshmen and sophomores. Those institutions that are not
carrying out their responsibility will then suffer diminished
funding.

Rewards that can be given to faculty to improve their teaching
include teaching-assistants, materials, support to attend conferences
on education, and sabbaticals.

Textbooks are another source of concern. They are written by
scientists, but then marketing departments make revisions, often to
the point of making the material out of tune with what was initially
written. To overcome this, perhaps several universities could form a
consortium and produce their own texts.

Laboratories are also of great concern. At one time, laboratory
instruction was excellent. Now courses either have poorly designed
labs run with outdated equipment, or lack labs altogether. This
aspect of science education must be improved greatly. Indeed, our
teaching labs have fallen behind those of Europe.

We must also enhance the level of student/faculty interaction. That
is difficult to do when there are several hundred students in a
course. One approach is to invite colleagues to give a seminar on
their research, but at a level simple enough for students to
understand and profit from it. A side benefit is that faculty can
understand what their colleagues are doing.

Faculty should also be persistent when seeking resources from their
administrators and should not take "no" for an answer. If
administrators continue to deny support, faculty should tell students
that they are being "stiffed" by the administrators, and have
students call administrators at home. (This proposal generated some
lively discussion during the question-and-answer period
afterwards).

Dr. Kathleen Smith (Duke University)

Labs having a cookbook format often turn students off. Much can be
done to make the lab experience more rewarding. Labs help students
learn that science is a process, and helps students master
techniques.

We need to better identify the ways that students learn. For example,
some students learn well by lecture. Some do not. Another approach is
to give students a research experience.

Recruitment of underrepresented groups is another area of concern.
The high amount of effort toward this end must continue. Recruitment
of students into science must start early. Local Sigma Xi chapters
and clubs should find ways to attract students into science. We must
overcome the intimidation factor. Scientists can act as mentors. To
attract minorities, it is not necessary for the mentor to be the same
gender or race as the student; he or she must merely be sensitive to
the needs and interests of the individual student.

Dr. William V. D'Antonio (American Sociological Association)

It is important to prepare graduate students to be good teachers.
One way to accomplish that goal would be to mandate education courses
for graduate students. Some administrators resist that, though.

Secondly, good teaching must be rewarded. The best model is the small
liberal arts college.

We should lobby state legislators for more support. They think that
we only work twelve hours per week. We also need a national
spokesperson to lobby for more support for science education.

Dr. Bassam Z. Shakhashiri (National Science Foundation)
"Developing a Will to Enhance the Quality of Undergraduate Science
and Math Education"

In education, we often have a tendency to take a retrospective look
and be nostalgic as to where we've been. Instead we should develop a
vision as to where we would like to be during the next fifty
years.

The situation is presently worse that it was during the post-Sputnik
era for three reasons. First, the population has increased by fifty
million over the past thirty years and therefore we need more
teachers at all levels. Second, for the U.S. to maintain preeminence,
we need more scientists and engineers. We did it following Sputnik,
but now we need even more. Third, and most important, we have a much
more advanced society. We need education for non-specialist. The
public must deal with complex issues dealing with animal rights,
pollution, and deforestation. Our fellow citizens must be
scientifically literate.

NSF has a twin mission: to increase the flow of talent into science,
and to increase the technological literacy of the public.

A good analogy is sports; there are players and fans. We need
scientists and science fans. Both groups need to be rational, not
like soccer fanatics in Europe. Another analogy would be that the
relationship between scientists and the public should be like an
orchestra and its appreciative audience.

There is a great drop-off in the number of people interested in
science between high school and the Ph.D. level. We need more Ph.D.'s
to participate in big projects like "Star Wars", human genome
mapping, and AIDS.

Scientists should demonstrate a higher level of concern for science
literacy. Unfortunately, many scientists do a poor job of
communicating their science to the public. To compound problems, the
high degree of subspecialization forces many scientists to be
illiterate in other areas.

A scientifically-literate public is important because the public pays
for science. Since students become disinterested in the junior-high
level, scientists must find a way to deal with students at that age
group. We must also attend to the needs of the non-major, and to do
so will involve an examination of curricular offerings to non-majors.
Another problem is that we focus on only the best and brightest.
Instead, we should also address the bottom half of the
population.

In science education, we should aim to: (1) provide students with the
best possible preparation for their careers, (2) increase
representation among all groups in our society, and (3) support an
experimental approach to teaching science. In essence, we need to
generate change, both incrementally and comprehensively. Change has
several components, including curricular content, staffing,
conditions for learning (especially an effective lab experience),
governance, and resources. Participants should include all types of
colleges and universities, the private sector, states and school
systems, parents, granting agencies, human service agencies, and
professional societies. Individuals that should be involved include
governors, education commissioners of states, and urban school
superintendents.

We need national strategies, consisting of clearly defined goals and
standards. Such standards should not be set by bureaucrats, but
instead by intellectual leaders. Individual standards would focus on
student achievement, teacher qualifications, the environment for
learning, and the quality and effectiveness of the curriculum. Those
standards should be set at each grade level.

There are three major areas of concern: math, health, and the
environment. In terms of the first, math cuts across all disciplines
and all levels of educations. The book "Everybody Counts" provides a
good basis for improving science education. In terms of health
education, students should learn about human biology, nutrition,
drugs, and even controversial topics like AIDS. Environmental
education will provide a good context to teach physical science,
biology, earth science and engineering. We must develop excellent
curricular offerings for non-scientists, and this will require a
substantial change in philosophy by many science faculty.

How does this relate to the National Science Foundation? In terms of
funding, education once commanded 40% of the overall budget. Now only
10% is devoted to education. Funds for undergraduate education
suffered a particularly severe cut in the early 1980's due to
Reagan's policies.

Why should NSF provide funds for education? At one level the reason
is the same as for providing funds for research. At a second level,
funding for science education enhances national security, economic
security, an effective democracy, and it serves to satisfy the
curiosity of U.S. citizens.

(At this point he showed a videotape in which several people
participating in a commencement at Harvard University were asked why
is the earth warmer in the summer and cooler in the winter. The
respondents included faculty, administrators and students, all in
full academic regalia. Each person interviewed responded that the
earth is warmer in summer because it is closer to the sun than in the
winter. One of the respondents indicated that he had taken several
science courses, including one in astronomy.)

When he speaks at meetings like this, he is often accused of
preaching to the choir. Instead, he wants the choir to sing in
harmony and out loud. We must develop a national will to deal with
these problems. We must address and correct the notion of teaching
loads and research opportunities.

Dr. Patricia Morse (President Sigma Xi) "Summary Comments"

Science education really depends to a large extent on a one-on-one
interaction between scientists and others. We should focus on what we
can do to help the situation, and not be hung up on where we are
from. We need to relieve teachers of being overloaded and find a way
to thank them for their outstanding effort. We must also communicate
to our colleagues in humanities that innumeracy and science-phobia
are as unacceptable as is general illiteracy.